S.RAMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order in G.O. (2D) No.641, (Revenue (Pani6(1)) Department, dated 26.11.2008 passed by the 1st respondent, thereby imposing a punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect with a specific direction that the same should not affect the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was serving as Assistant in Indian Made Foreign Service Depot, Coimbatore (South), during his tenure, he was issued with a Charge Memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules levelling the following two charges, namely, ''Charge No.I That the said Thiru S.Ramar, formerly Assistant, IMPS Depott, Coimbatore (South) has placed the 277 broken bottles of Monitor Brandy 180 ml., 310 broken bottles of Monitor Whisky 180 ml., and 157 broken bottles of other IMFL items in regular IMFL good packages with malafide intention of manipulating the stocks for personal gains.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that therefore, the petitioner came to this Court by filing W.P.No.21513/2007 seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to pass orders on his explanation dated 03.12.2004 and the reminder dated 11.10.2006 and also for consideration of his name for promotion. This Court by order dated 25.06.2007, considering the limited prayer, directed the respondents 1 and 2 therein to pass final orders in one way or other against the charge memo issued to the petitioner dated 15.07.2004. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, an enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer after going through the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner held that the Charge No.I was not established, however, while giving finding on the Charge No.II held that the petitioner was guilty of the Charge No.II. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, after furnishing a copy thereof, calling for explanation and accepting the further representation, passed the impugned order dated 26.11.2008 without showing any application of mind as to how he considered the Charge No.II on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, also his explanation and further representation given by the petitioner to the report of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the impugned order passed being a non-speaking order, the same is liable to be set aside, it is pleaded.